FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Jensonb]

Here's an engineer explaining why it is that passing the FiA's scrutineering test for wing flexing does not guarantee the part is legal:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=41889

[What's Burning?]

The way this thing is looking, I just got rid of Webber from my SPEEDtv fantasy F1 league and replaced him with Jenson Button. It was the right thing to do for Monza anyway, but I think that this latest news about the floor test is going to take away the DOMINANCE and replace it with... dominance.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, McLaren have had to modify their floor to pass the new flex test as well. Which points to the fact that everything flexes so the legality of any component only can be determined by how much it flexes and not that it flexes.

Also, RBR borrowed the FIA's testing equipment prior to Monza, determined their car wasn't going to pass the new test, and mended it so it would.

Particularly since even the holier-than-thou Martin Whitmarsh found his team's cars wanting, by Singapore, I would be quite surprised if Adrian Newey doesn't manage to re-engineer the RBR's floor to allow the droopy nose and still pass the new test.

[smokin]

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black, McLaren have had to modify their floor to pass the new flex test as well. Which points to the fact that everything flexes so the legality of any component only can be determined by how much it flexes and not that it flexes.

Also, RBR borrowed the FIA's testing equipment prior to Monza, determined their car wasn't going to pass the new test, and mended it so it would.

Particularly since even the holier-than-thou Martin Whitmarsh found his team's cars wanting, by Singapore, I would be quite surprised if Adrian Newey doesn't manage to re-engineer the RBR's floor to allow the droopy nose and still pass the new test.

McLaren needn't have bothered. Alonso modified Button's floor at the start of the race.

I share your confidence in Newey's abilities to design around the new test and maintain their advantage in front wing/nose/floor performance, though.

[smokin]

Just a thought - I wonder if the Bulls' newfound overtaking ability has anything to do with revising the wing? Not so fast on the one-lap fliers needed for qualifying and streaking away in clear air but more stable when following other cars.

I suppose we'll learn more after Singapore, undoubtedly a Red Bull lock in their pre-Spa, pre_Monza configuration.

Oh, I forgot. Horner stated categorically that no changes had been made...

[nish2280]

Just a thought - I wonder if the Bulls' newfound overtaking ability has anything to do with revising the wing? Not so fast on the one-lap fliers needed for qualifying and streaking away in clear air but more stable when following other cars.

I suppose we'll learn more after Singapore, undoubtedly a Red Bull lock in their pre-Spa, pre_Monza configuration.

Oh, I forgot. Horner stated categorically that no changes had been made...

I think Red Bull have just needed some room to do the overtaking (in which i presume you mean in Spa and Monza) due to their weaker engine whereas teams such as McLaren who are running the Mercedes engine have found it easier to overtake.

Maybe it also has to do with the high downforce levels RB6 creates which only make it quick in the corners and not so quick on the straights (which is where most of the overtaking happens).

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

...Oh, I forgot. Horner stated categorically that no changes had been made...

Suffice to say, veracity is not a job prerequisite for F1 team principals.

[scotty]

...Oh, I forgot. Horner stated categorically that no changes had been made...

Suffice to say, veracity is not a job prerequisite for F1 team principals.

It's not improbable that he is telling the truth. I think it is actually the more likely situation here. I don't see what he would have to gain from lying - surely if mind games were in play he'd say they'd made a load of changes, leaving competitors to waste their time trying to figure out why they're still quick. People seem to have assumed they have changed something purely using onboard camera visuals, but that does not tell the whole story by any stretch.

[f1ea]

...Oh, I forgot. Horner stated categorically that no changes had been made...

Suffice to say, veracity is not a job prerequisite for F1 team principals.

It's not improbable that he is telling the truth. I think it is actually the more likely situation here. I don't see what he would have to gain from lying - surely if mind games were in play he'd say they'd made a load of changes, leaving competitors to waste their time trying to figure out why they're still quick. People seem to have assumed they have changed something purely using onboard camera visuals, but that does not tell the whole story by any stretch.

the wing/front/nose probably changed only a bit from the tests. But the concept has to still be there... could be they simply need to tighten a few screws....... Also, the past races (spa and monza) were no real measure for the wing as it was a completely different downforce package from the couple races before.

[myownalias]

Here's an engineer explaining why it is that passing the FiA's scrutineering test for wing flexing does not guarantee the part is legal:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=41889

That's an interesting article but it doesn't negate the fact that it's a static test in one direction, that is the requirements to be classed as legal, in scrutineering or when tested by the FIA before the wing is passed for use in-race. What it does out of the track is irrelevant really as that is not part of the legality test, all teams will manufacture their parts to [barely] pass the static tests. Let's face it; McLaren brought this issue to the FIA's attention because they could not copy the design, McLaren and many other teams had to make alterations to their floor to pass the new tests implemented at Monza, which means that most teams floors were flexing more than allowed under race conditions!

[spankyham]

What I found most interesting on this flexi wing thing was the FiA press conference last Friday. http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11233.html Basically it was all the propeller-heads (engineers) there. While they were talking about the flexi wing and tests, Aldo Costa (Ferrari) and Adrian Newey (RBR) announced that at a recent working group meeting they suggested reducing the allowed flex limit from 10mm to 5mm in addition to the change in the reference point and the increase in the load test of 50 to 100Kgs. After all their carrying-on about the "flexing" wings, guess who didn't agree - Paddy Lowe - McLaren.

[f1ea]

What I found most interesting on this flexi wing thing was the FiA press conference last Friday. http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/9/11233.html Basically it was all the propeller-heads (engineers) there. While they were talking about the flexi wing and tests, Aldo Costa (Ferrari) and Adrian Newey (RBR) announced that at a recent working group meeting they suggested reducing the allowed flex limit from 10mm to 5mm in addition to the change in the reference point and the increase in the load test of 50 to 100Kgs. After all their carrying-on about the "flexing" wings, guess who didn't agree - Paddy Lowe - McLaren.

Ohhhh Keep it up hehe

[Jensonb]

Here's an engineer explaining why it is that passing the FiA's scrutineering test for wing flexing does not guarantee the part is legal:

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=41889

That's an interesting article but it doesn't negate the fact that it's a static test in one direction, that is the requirements to be classed as legal, in scrutineering or when tested by the FIA before the wing is passed for use in-race. What it does out of the track is irrelevant really as that is not part of the legality test, all teams will manufacture their parts to [barely] pass the static tests. Let's face it; McLaren brought this issue to the FIA's attention because they could not copy the design, McLaren and many other teams had to make alterations to their floor to pass the new tests implemented at Monza, which means that most teams floors were flexing more than allowed under race conditions!

No no no no

That statement is the very definition of a wallbanger. The rule is about the part, not about its ability to pass the test. The test is supposed to prove one way or the other if the part complies with the rule. The fact is it does not, actually, prove this. So passing Scrutineering:

A - Does not prove the car is legal
and
B - Is not how the part is defined as legal or illegal. It is illegal if it flexes in the manner the rules describe as being banned, whether it does it in the Test or not.

You are essentially saying that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. Which is baloney. It's just cheating in a clever manner.

[vaptin]

Yes, but you can't punish someone if you can't catch them at it, there's not much downside to the team cheating if they don't get caught.

[Jensonb]

Yes, but you can't punish someone if you can't catch them at it, there's not much downside to the team cheating if they don't get caught.

Well sure, but that doesn't mean we can't criticise them for it. Cheating is cheating.